Plate tectonics isn't really a good example. It was the missing global description of geology that was missing. People knew it was missing.

And I do understand that the AIDS issue was a demonstration of the piece of the puzzle and not a single issue of proof.

You did claim loads and loads of proof so I expect that there are pieces of the puzzle available for inspection. If I were to choose plate tectonics demonstrations I could choose from many pieces of evidence.

Are you asking for loads and loads of proof,or are you asking for a single experiment?

Generally speaking, science works on loads and loads of proof, because it needs replication. Hence, Entangled Minds. Plus, I know I have linked to ALL sorts of studies in past posts.

For a recap of those, so you can get your Get It Now fix, I suggest Daryl J Bem's website:http://dbem.ws/online_pubs.htmlThis has two really good analyses of the Autoganzfeld database(s) (depending if you consider it all one big thing, or several large chunks)

Again, that's the tip of the iceberg. It's not that I don't have the studies (notice, unlike most Woo guys, I immediately have evidence when prompted for it? It doesn't seem to make a difference half the time though...). It's that there is SO MUCH of it that it's difficult to consolidate.

But I REALLY recommend Entangled Minds if you want the most concise, fact-filled recap of psi research. No use reinventing the wheel.

Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars.

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Out of 170 users who contributed 20 or more trials, 36 had overall results significant at p < 0.05. Only 8.5 people are expected to be significant at this level by chance; this excess is associated with an exact binomial p~10–13, suggesting that some individuals may have exhibited talent at this task.4 A similar analysis of trials contributed by 5,004 people, each of whom provided a single trial, showed that 333 had results significant at p < .05, whereas only 250 would be expected by chance. Of these individuals, 4,841 included belief information in their questionnaire. Figure 13 shows their average z scores by level of belief. Schmeidler’s (1943) Sheep-Goat effect predicts a positive correlation. As shown, the results are significantly positive. More personality correlates are examined later.

Card test was nonsignificant. This could be evidence against psi, or too weak of a psi task and any results lost in the noise.

Sheep goat effect was strongly support, however, across all tests. Belief, RV training, and movement arts correlations with psi performance were all significant. RV use was nearly significant. Surprisingly, intuition was nearly significant negative correlation.

A very intriguing study. But definitely shows that there is more at work than pure statistical anomaly.

Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars.

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

The hit rate was given to be 20%, which matches pure chance. The conclusion was that psi tests could be administered using computers and a network.

I did play with the rv. That was really odd. I envisioned high, dry mountains and then the photo was of a beach and a grass hut. I ended up with a high score some how. The only low score I got was when I though it was a 2 story house and it turned out to be 5 jets flying. My scores were what appeared to be good even though none of the images I thought were coming were even close to the photo that was shown. Another example was I thought it was a pasture with no livestock in it and it turned out to be birds in a nest.

With that much data I'm sure you can point to something here and there, but overall the data shows a result consistent with chance.

A very intriguing study. But definitely shows that there is more at work than pure statistical anomaly.

I would have to disagree with that statement since the report clearly stated that was not the case.

NucleicAcid wrote:The thing is, that chunk of the quote is a full statement. It could be used to answer the question:

Has [ESP] been proven by the conventional standards of science?

Yes.

Done. That's all I care about. There is nothing nonfactual about any of that. Prove me wrong.

I know exactly what the position of the skeptical community is. They are drawn together by the singular belief that supernatural things are impossible. Yet, they are faced with an overwhelming and ever increasing body of evidence to the contrary. They are the epitome of rigid and conservative dogmatic mindsets. So what do they do? After they've realized they can't attack the data any more, because it's good data, they resort to, "Okay. Fine. The data is good. But it doesn't mean psi exists. We need more proof before we'll believe it." That paraphrased is EXACTLY what Wiseman said, and my point is in how ironic it is that every time they come to this conclusion (which has been several times now since the late 1800s), they push the goalposts even farther. In other words, we need MORE than science. We need unanimity. It's dogma, not science.

On your behalf and other persons of like positions I sense a deep and stubborn resistance to the idea that there is not something to all this paranormal stuff.

Silly really?. This is why you shouldn't make assumptions. I am KEENLY aware of the possibility that there is nothing at all to this paranormal stuff. However, possessing a very strong critical thinking mind, I am able to simultaneously weight the absurdity of the claims of the paranormal, the possibility that it is all one giant coincidence, the massive amount of evidence in its favor, the fraud that has occurred in the parapsychological community, a few other variables, and lastly but most importantly, my personal experience in the field. And if it weren't for the last bit, I wouldn't have half the conviction that I have.

You, on the other hand, seem resistant to even poke your nose into any of the research done in scientific laboratories all around the world in heavily controlled conditions.

The problem with "Prove it" is that skeptics want to see superpowers before they will believe psi is real. Unrealistic. They wanna see someone read someone's mind like it's a book, or levitate a couch. And EVEN THEN, they'd still believe it was a magic trick.

I am fully grounded in realistic expectations because I have worked with this stuff for a decade. You are an armchair skeptic who has done the minimum of reading on the material, and asserts that your position is the correct one, because it seems to be what most people are saying.

You see the thing is you don't argue like a fence sitter.

You are an armchair skeptic who has done the minimum of reading on the material, and asserts that your position is the correct one, because it seems to be what most people are saying.

An assumption. You've got one 10 year period. I'm going on my 3+ decade. I'm still waiting for the obvious not something clearly visible if I just squint my eyes.

The problem with "Prove it" is that skeptics want to see superpowers before they will believe psi is real. Unrealistic. They wanna see someone read someone's mind like it's a book, or levitate a couch. And EVEN THEN, they'd still believe it was a magic trick.

We want the same rigors applied to parapsychology as required by all the other sciences; not leniency, that's what you and many other proponents want leniency.

I have the internet. I allows me to argue from a more aggressive standpoint. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of the nature of things. It really has more to do with how confident in general I am feeling any given day, how much I believe in psi. I think it's a dopamine thing. But for the most part, I do believe psi is real. I have moved things with my mind, after all. But sometimes, if I let all the skepticism get to me, I start to doubt how well I actually performed. But I have other people who witnessed these things and can remind me that no, it wasn't just wind or drafts or anything stupid like that.

An assumption. You've got one 10 year period. I'm going on my 3+ decade. I'm still waiting for the obvious not something clearly visible if I just squint my eyes.

Okay. Show me a large experiment that shows strong evidence against the psi hypothesis. Bonus points if I don't already know the study and know all of the things that are wrong with it.

We want the same rigors applied to parapsychology as required by all the other sciences; not leniency, that's what you and many other proponents want leniency.

Not at all. I'm glad we've had the drilling that the skeptical community has given us. It's really helped create extremely well controlled studies. What I want them to stop doing is refuting psi on an a priori belief that it is impossible, and actually look at things from level ground.

Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars.

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

[url]http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-society/articles/neuroimaging-fails-demonstrate-esp-real[/url]there you go

yet another experiment showing no evidence for esp

For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)

I was waiting for someone to find that study and drag it out, so I could rip it apart. XD I must be psychic. Yawn.

This is how their logic goes.

We tested for ESP. We found the results were at chance. We scanned their brains. The brains of the subjects looked exactly the same when they were doing ESP as when they weren't. ESP must not exist.

In other words:

We tested to see if black swans look like white swans. We looked for black swans, but couldn't find any, so we gathered a bunch of white swans instead. We concluded that black swans look exactly like white swans. Black swans don't exist. Durrrrrr.

Vernon M Neppe comments in the 2009 issue of Journal of Parapsychology:

The Hazards of Reductionistic Neuroscience Interpretation: Revisiting Anomalies and Subjective Experience Linked With the Brain

ASTRACT: Several recent neuroscience research publications on alleged psi abilities and their brain correlates are examined. Superficial evaluations of these studies could support the model of materialistic reductionism, namely, that specific psi experiences derive solely from brain physiology. Detailed analyses in this paper dispute this conclusion [...]

3. How functional magnetic resonance imagine (fMRI) can be used to evaluate the existence of extrasensory perception. In the well-publicized Moulton study of 2008, the objective of evaluating the neural correlates of ESP was not tested because ESP was not demonstrated. This study contrasts with several lesser known, but methodologically sound, related fMRI studies: These are all positive for the interactive role of nonconscious processes (including presentiment research) between two individuals.

You can't compare something when you don't have it to compare. All you have here is a regular forced-choice ESP test that came out to chance, with the extra condition that it is likely that MRIs may not be conducive to psi testing. It's a crappy parapsychology study. And it's only a mediocre brain imaging paper.

And in fact, several other papers DID find an ESP correlation between brains using fMRI.

same old excuse i seen before¨they just showed how not to prove for ESP¨

For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)

NucleicAcid wrote:Not at all. I'm glad we've had the drilling that the skeptical community has given us. It's really helped create extremely well controlled studies. What I want them to stop doing is refuting psi on an a priori belief that it is impossible, and actually look at things from level ground.

Most of us don't refute based upon any priori assumptions. It's more of a case of the boy who cried wolf one to many times when there was no wolf. We do always look at things from the ground level because we are pragmatic.

I totally will give you that. I wish I could go back in time and punch every fake psychic, and that guy who tampered with RNGs in Rhine's lab. Yes, that would involve lots of punching and some roundhouse kicks (good real-world Isshinryu karate practice XD), but it would be all worth it in the end.

Realistically, though, I wonder how much it will take to overcome that checkered past? We've come very close many times, it seems like more psi research papers are being published in mainstream journals every year, even if they have to masquerade as "anomalous cognition." I guess time will tell. But I think this next decade will entail a large breakthrough.

Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars.

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

NucleicAcid wrote:I totally will give you that. I wish I could go back in time and punch every fake psychic, and that guy who tampered with RNGs in Rhine's lab. Yes, that would involve lots of punching and some roundhouse kicks (good real-world Isshinryu karate practice XD), but it would be all worth it in the end.

Realistically, though, I wonder how much it will take to overcome that checkered past? We've come very close many times, it seems like more psi research papers are being published in mainstream journals every year, even if they have to masquerade as "anomalous cognition." I guess time will tell. But I think this next decade will entail a large breakthrough.

i hope you are right manPSI is by far the most desirable paranormal stuff i would want it to be truebut right now as it is, i dont think we have conclude evidence for it..

For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)

Maybe. Which is why I think personal experience is so important as a contributing factor for belief. I bet if you took two groups of people, people who have had paranormal experiences, and people who have never had paranormal experiences, and gave them a balanced rundown of the information available, you would see that the people who had paranormal experience would be largely, "Wow, I KNEW I wasn't crazy!" and the people who have never had any paranormal experiences go, "...So? Even if it is real, which I doubt, it looks pretty pointless"

Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars.

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

mm...i´ll say that personal experiences cant be relied on because memory isnt perfect and perception means everythingso nopersonal experiences do not count

science doesnt work that way

For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)